With a 9KT bomb though - 500 yards from a single ICBM warhead in the 100s of KT range would be a different story never mind a 1-3MT device.
Surviving a point blank nuclear explosion
- Thread starter hornetstinger
- Start date
With a 9KT bomb though - 500 yards from a single ICBM warhead in the 100s of KT range would be a different story never mind a 1-3MT device.
true. iirc 250kt is the max we have on most warheads now isn't it?
nearly all the megaton weapons have been retired.
Most of the operational warheads I believe are configured for around that (or less) - some might be 300kt - some countries still keep some big old bombs in reserve stock though i.e. Russia can repurpose many of its platforms to launch a single dozens of MT warhead instead of the ~10x 750kt (usually configured for half that) which they are operational with.
Last edited:
That was indeed one proposal.
But it was considered too complex. (Too many separate things that have to be got right in sequence)
Much of the program is still classified since it centred primarily on manufacturing very small nuclear bombs, the very most dangerous kind!
(Because it makes them "Practical", I have always reckoned that the Davy Crockett was actually the most dangerous weapon of the Nuclear Cold War era for this reason)
Ulam, IIRC, reckoned he could have designd a full implosion device that you could have actually held in your hand (Though it would have been heavy)
The 10M design (That was designed to be launched using Saturn 1st stage boosters) used a sort of nuclear shaped charge to vaporise a disk of Tungsten to generate a jet of 100Km/S plasma directed back at the pusher plate. It would have worked but would have been wasteful. 10M diameter and a couple of hundred tons of space ship is too small really.
It is one of those concepts that's gets better the bigger you go. The minimum "Sensible" design is around 30M and 4000 tons.
50,000 tons or upwards is even better, you can build the ships stronger and better shielded, use bigger more efficient bombs (In terms of material use) Use fusion devices (which are cleaner and more effective. Fission only is actually a poor energy source for this since you actually want high energy neutrons, not fission fragments).
I have always felt that the worst disaster of the 20th century (In terms of the progress of mankind) was the USA getting to the Moon first.
If the Soviet Union had crossed the line first, the USA would have HAD to go for Mars, By 1969 the Saturn boosted Mars Orion was already well developed (On Paper) it would have been the only option for the USA recovering their pride.
Had this happened and the technology established as practiacl. We would be all over the Solar system by now...
An interesting perspective.
Kind of think the same way on the last bit - we should be far more advanced in our utilisation and exploration of the solar system than we currently are.
The Orion project? That mode of propulsion is for once you're in Space. You'd want big, conventional booster rockets to get it into orbit initially. Or else assemble in orbit. I say that because I read your post as suggesting we need empty deserts as suitable launch sites due to the radiation.
The Orion project is a great idea that allows for much larger vessels than otherwise. We should build it. Give the species something useful to do rather than sit and watch our jobs slowly transitioned to robots whilst wondering how to be useful.
I have always felt that the worst disaster of the 20th century (In terms of the progress of mankind) was the USA getting to the Moon first.
If the Soviet Union had crossed the line first, the USA would have HAD to go for Mars, By 1969 the Saturn boosted Mars Orion was already well developed (On Paper) it would have been the only option for the USA recovering their pride.
Had this happened and the technology established as practiacl. We would be all over the Solar system by now...
Fascinating thought. Going to be musing on that one for a while. In principle, it had already happened with Sputnik. The USA had such a huge drive for the moon landings in large part because of that. I've seen old archive footage of US citizens being interviewed on the street about Sputnik and they're in shock. Genuine culture shock. They can't process that the Soviet Union has a machine orbiting the Earth. I recall a man just asking how it was possible that the Russians could do this and they couldn't. He looked like someone had just told him the Mexicans had re-taken Texas. I felt sorry for them.
If the Soviets had gotten to the moon first too, it would have been a profound shock to the US mind, I genuinely believe it.
i thoguht the orian project and its huge ships usedthe nuclear propulsion for launch too.
one fon them using over 1000 detonations to reach space.
to a degree. they specifically tweaked bombs to make a neutron bomb but, cmiiw, they were all dismantled.
yeah i kn ow of neutron bombs i was curious to "normal" nukes, neutron bombs where made to kil ltank crews but they foudn that modern armour rendered them basically useless aN YWAY .
but say the detonatiopn was a salted bomb would you ever be able top leave the tank safely without a huge decontamination team to clean the outside form you?
i'd have to dig out my book on nukes for spoecifics, but generally, iirc, gamma radiation from any decent sized yield would make things lethal for a long time. even radiation traces from spent depleted Uranium rounds that have obliterated an armoured vehicle can cause health issues.
Watched a PBS documentary on Netflix about the 1980 American Titan II accident, worth a watch and damn scary as it details other nuclear accidents etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion
i thoguht deplete urinium was dinfinitly proved safe by every single test?
gama from sucha low source would be negligable due to its low absorbtion?
Depleted Uranium danger isn't gamma. It is rather like regular heavy metal poisoning. And if you breathe/consume it, that will damage you from inside with alpha radiation (the "harmless" one).
DU rounds will readily shatter/explode/burn into dust sized particles and those easily get into ground water or get ingested.
DU rounds will readily shatter/explode/burn into dust sized particles and those easily get into ground water or get ingested.
Also lets not forget that although the tank may have survived and worked afterwards, they deemed that the occupants would not have survived due to the overpressure/shockwave.
Do you mean this?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bo...tyle-force-field-technology/story?id=29839654
That doesn't even sort of exist, does it?
I think you need to read the article and the science behind it before your next attempt at sarcasm. The amount of energy that "deflector shield" actually blocks is tiny, it wouldn't "deflect" a hand grenade, let alone a nuclear explosion.
300k years ago we knew nothing. Today we know quite a lot and any future scientific breakthrough will have current scientific knowledge at its foundation. 300k years ago we believed painting prey on cave walls is a good idea but now, not so much. mavity on the other hand will still be mavity 300k years from now and, contrary to popular belief, not everything is possible.
Back on the topic, the problem with "energy fields" is that energy can not be stationary (relatively), like the armour of a tank or a kevlar vest. Their popular depiction, a somewhat translucent, thin field will never be created not matter how much our technology progresses. The emission of energy in powerful bursts is more feasible but that's not much of a "field", it's extremely costly and less effective than layers of materials.
I wouldn't put it as absolutely as that - over the last few years we've seen theories that would atleast work even if completely infeasible or not practical now if ever that for as long as I can remember were very much in the realm of science fiction and would "never be possible".
Going a bit different direction to the classic forcefield but for instance it could be possible to build a field using some kind of nanite type swarming setup at some point in the longer future that would effectively work the same way.
